CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

RHS 90×50×3.6 vs CF RHS 90×50×4

RHS 90×50×3.6 is an RHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); CF RHS 90×50×4 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). CF RHS 90×50×4 carries more bending: 28.8 cm³ of plastic modulus against 27.2 cm³, 5.6% more. RHS 90×50×3.6 is the lighter of the two at 7.4 kg/m against 7.97 kg/m, a saving of 7.2% on steel weight. Both are about 90 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyRHS 90×50×3.6
RHS Hot-finished
CF RHS 90×50×4
RHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass7.4 kg/m8 kg/m-7.2%
Depth90 mm90 mmsame
Width50 mm50 mmsame
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area9.4 cm²10.1 cm²-6.7%
Second moment, major (Iy)98.3 cm⁴103 cm⁴-4.6%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)27.2 cm³28.8 cm³-5.6%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)21.8 cm³22.8 cm³-4.4%
Second moment, minor (Iz)38.7 cm⁴40.7 cm⁴-4.9%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)18 cm³19.1 cm³-5.8%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)2.03 cm2 cm+1.5%
Torsion constant (It)89.4 cm⁴97.7 cm⁴-8.5%

RHS 90×50×3.6 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; CF RHS 90×50×4 to BS EN 10219-2:2006. Difference is expressed relative to CF RHS 90×50×4.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, CF RHS 90×50×4 has the larger second moment of area: 103 cm⁴ against 98.3 cm⁴, a difference of 4.6%. This matters more often than the strength comparison, because on normal floor spans deflection rather than bending capacity sets the beam size - so if the two are close on modulus but apart on inertia, the stiffer one is usually the better answer even when it is not the stronger one.

Measured as bending capacity per kilogram, the two are equally efficient (3.7 against 3.6 cm³ per kg/m), so on a pure steel-tonnage basis there is nothing to choose between them. The decision comes down to availability, connection detailing and what the rest of the frame uses.

In short, CF RHS 90×50×4 is the stronger section and RHS 90×50×3.6 is the lighter one; where those are the same section, it is the clear choice, and where they are not, decide on whether your design is governed by capacity or by tonnage.

Common questions

CF RHS 90×50×4 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 28.8 cm³ against 27.2 cm³ - 5.6% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

RHS 90×50×3.6 at 7.4 kg/m, against 7.97 kg/m for the other - a saving of 7.2%. Over a repeated floor beam that is a real cost difference, but check it against the deflection case before taking it.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: CF RHS 90×50×4 gives 28.8 cm³ of plastic modulus and 103 cm⁴ of inertia against 27.2 cm³ and 98.3 cm⁴. Re-check deflection and the connection details before swapping, since the flange and web thicknesses differ.

CF RHS 90×50×4, with a second moment of area of 103 cm⁴ against 98.3 cm⁴ (4.6% more). Deflection under a uniform load goes as 5wL⁴/384EI, so it is inversely proportional to I - on a span where the deflection limit governs rather than strength, this is the number that decides the section.

Related comparisons

RHS 90×50×4 vs CF RHS 90×50×4
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…